Yes, they are. Really loving someone and deciding to show them mercy is an explicit rejection of giving them the justice they deserve for their act, rather than the leniency your affection can provide.

(February 20, 2020 at 11:44 am)tackattack Wrote: My opinion, I don't think justice can really exist without mercy. You may think they're mutually exclusive, but are they? Have you ever loved and hated someone? Maybe the differences are more subtle or the definitions are muddled here, but I don't think justice and mercy, on general principle, are mutually exclusive.

Joe is on trial for a particularly brutal mugging, the sentence for which is three years in prison. This sentence was suggested via a public opinion poll and enacted by duly elected legislators.

Joe is found guilty. He shows no remorse during his sentencing, and can’t promise not to carry out a similar attack in the future. Instead of imposing the sentence permitted by law, the judge orders Joe to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $1000 fine.

Has the judge been just or merciful?

Boru

(February 20, 2020 at 11:44 am)tackattack Wrote: My opinion, I don't think justice can really exist without mercy. You may think they're mutually exclusive, but are they? Have you ever loved and hated someone? Maybe the differences are more subtle or the definitions are muddled here, but I don't think justice and mercy, on general principle, are mutually exclusive.

Irrelevant. Justice requires that you get what you deserve. Mercy requires that you don't. I find it astonishing that this is a difficult concept for you. Or your god.

(February 20, 2020 at 11:44 am)tackattack Wrote: My opinion, I don't think justice can really exist without mercy. You may think they're mutually exclusive, but are they? Have you ever loved and hated someone? Maybe the differences are more subtle or the definitions are muddled here, but I don't think justice and mercy, on general principle, are mutually exclusive.

I have never loved and hated someone at the same time. I mean I might say it jokingly, or say "I love to hate them", but if there's someone in real life that I hate, I do not also love them.

(February 20, 2020 at 12:06 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 20, 2020 at 11:44 am)tackattack Wrote: My opinion, I don't think justice can really exist without mercy. You may think they're mutually exclusive, but are they? Have you ever loved and hated someone? Maybe the differences are more subtle or the definitions are muddled here, but I don't think justice and mercy, on general principle, are mutually exclusive.

Joe is on trial for a particularly brutal mugging, the sentence for which is three years in prison. This sentence was suggested via a public opinion poll and enacted by duly elected legislators.

Joe is found guilty. He shows no remorse during his sentencing, and can’t promise not to carry out a similar attack in the future. Instead of imposing the sentence permitted by law, the judge orders Joe to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $1000 fine.

Has the judge been just or merciful?

Boru

Option c) the judge is a bad one at that.

Had the defendant claimed effect of drugs/finantial distress, etc for its actions, showed regret and the will to reintegrate on society via court ordered directives, then it would be just to lower the sentence. Also hinges on the severity of the mugging. Was it murder, attempted murder or just a few bruises on the victim?

It would still incur in a finite punishment. Humans like us have a rather limited expiration date. To the max is life in prison and even that is relieved by death. The end. Hell is for those lilly livered people that want an afterlife. Me? I get everything from life, that big bowl of salt with some sugar nuggets betwixt. Until the final slumber where you dream no more.

(February 20, 2020 at 1:24 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(February 20, 2020 at 12:06 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Joe is on trial for a particularly brutal mugging, the sentence for which is three years in prison. This sentence was suggested via a public opinion poll and enacted by duly elected legislators.

Joe is found guilty. He shows no remorse during his sentencing, and can’t promise not to carry out a similar attack in the future. Instead of imposing the sentence permitted by law, the judge orders Joe to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $1000 fine.

Has the judge been just or merciful?

Boru

Option c) the judge is a bad one at that.

Had the defendant claimed effect of drugs/finantial distress, etc for its actions, showed regret and the will to reintegrate on society via court ordered directives, then it would be just to lower the sentence. Also hinges on the severity of the mugging. Was it murder, attempted murder or just a few bruises on the victim?

It would still incur in a finite punishment. Humans like us have a rather limited expiration date. To the max is life in prison and even that is relieved by death. The end. Hell is for those lilly livered people that want an afterlife. Me? I get everything from life, that big bowl of salt with some sugar nuggets betwixt. Until the final slumber where you dream no more.

When presented with a hypothetical - generally speaking - the respondent is not allowed to add provisos of his own.  

Boru

(February 20, 2020 at 9:18 am)Chad32 Wrote: So he doesn't know what fun is, but we want to be in heaven with him? The carrot's really not looking so crisp and fresh. Then again, if he's offering up 72 virgins to people, he must at least understand the concept of pleasure. I guess he just doesn't partake, because he's too busy torturing people he doesn't like. And some people he does like, if we take Job as an example.

You can show mercy sometimes, and justice other times, but you can't be 100% both at the same time, at all times. And when most people describe how great their god is, they usually mean 110% all the way, with no room for error.

I'm surprised that the "72 virgins" rightist joke is still circulating; I don't believe in this so you can just move on because it is totally...ignorant and makes me feel sad for you to believe in such thing.

Of course you can show both if you're a God, capable of anything. Unless you are speaking about "Shiva or the Evangelical Jesus", then you and I will never find a mutual ground for discussion because you insist on treating "God in Islam" as an "Anthropomorphism" freak resulting from human mind.

---

(February 20, 2020 at 11:44 am)tackattack Wrote: My opinion, I don't think justice can really exist without mercy. You may think they're mutually exclusive, but are they? Have you ever loved and hated someone? Maybe the differences are more subtle or the definitions are muddled here, but I don't think justice and mercy, on general principle, are mutually exclusive.

I truly think that nothing makes something "just" but "mercy"; court systems on earth exist because the society treats its "victims of crimes" with justice by avenging them, the more somebody "loves" and "cares" for their people the more they would build "a better justice system".

Saying justice and mercy are mutually exclusive is total denial of the fact that without mercy, justice would not even be implemented. In other words; the more "you care for your people -i.e love them-" the more you would sharpen your blades to protect them and avenge them. Which is why all nations in the world have armies.

The more someone loves or cares about someone the more compelled to vengeance they may be..but it's not clear what that has to do with mercy, let alone justice.

(February 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(February 20, 2020 at 9:18 am)Chad32 Wrote: So he doesn't know what fun is, but we want to be in heaven with him? The carrot's really not looking so crisp and fresh. Then again, if he's offering up 72 virgins to people, he must at least understand the concept of pleasure. I guess he just doesn't partake, because he's too busy torturing people he doesn't like. And some people he does like, if we take Job as an example.

You can show mercy sometimes, and justice other times, but you can't be 100% both at the same time, at all times. And when most people describe how great their god is, they usually mean 110% all the way, with no room for error.

I'm surprised that the "72 virgins" rightist joke is still circulating; I don't believe in this so you can just move on because it is totally...ignorant and makes me feel sad for you to believe in such thing.

Of course you can show both if you're a God, capable of anything. Unless you are speaking about "Shiva or the Evangelical Jesus", then you and I will never find a mutual ground for discussion because you insist on treating "God in Islam" as an "Anthropomorphism" freak resulting from human mind.

Probably for the best that there isn't 72 virgins. That's kind of weird on its own. So your god is in no way Human-like. It's just this eldritch creature that we can't relate to, who tortures people when it has nothing better to do. Completely alien, and horrifying. Like trying to appease the storm, or the volcano, so it doesn't do as much damage as it could.

(February 21, 2020 at 11:36 am)Chad32 Wrote:

(February 21, 2020 at 11:00 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: I'm surprised that the "72 virgins" rightist joke is still circulating; I don't believe in this so you can just move on because it is totally...ignorant and makes me feel sad for you to believe in such thing.

Of course you can show both if you're a God, capable of anything. Unless you are speaking about "Shiva or the Evangelical Jesus", then you and I will never find a mutual ground for discussion because you insist on treating "God in Islam" as an "Anthropomorphism" freak resulting from human mind.

Probably for the best that there isn't 72 virgins. That's kind of weird on its own. So your god is in no way Human-like. It's just this eldritch creature that we can't relate to, who tortures people when it has nothing better to do. Completely alien, and horrifying. Like trying to appease the storm, or the volcano, so it doesn't do as much damage as it could.

Of course we can't relate to God unless we want to be "Gods"; just like the ancient Greeks or ancient Egyptians. The only problem is that we aren't Gods, we can't even relate to God.

Here I suggest that we relate to another thing that we understand: our human nature.
Being mere "humans" with "flaws" and "weaknesses" will make us understand and realize that we need "God"; ego and child-dreams of nations before us about becoming "Gods" would evaporate, and instead of ego we will embrace humility.

Yes there is a God above us that tortures anybody who crosses the lines he drew; instead of having "child-dreams" or let me say "Satanic dreams" about becoming Gods ourselves, let's admit that we know nothing about God but what he revealed about himself, he is the eternal refugee, he is what keeping life and the universe alive, his mercy covers all and his punishment is subject to his justice.